Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11
important piece to that puzzle, but it's innovation through technology that's going to be able to reach the masses in ways that we have never been able to do so before. and so a big part of pencils of promise going forward is going to be investment in education technology for those that don't have access. it started with a pencil reading, writing and physical books are really an important piece to solving lobal education but the limitless possibilities that technology will afford us to educate children all around the world is something that i get really, really excited about. >> cenk: now we have another amazing story. a tour's been started called epic, every day people in cries highlighting the homeless crisis. they are calling themselves the babes of wrath. diane in 2005, it was a 20,000-mile journey in 24 different states. they join us in the studio, thank you for joining us. >> happy to be here. >> cenk: tell me about the tour, how does it work, who do you see, what do you do? >> we traveled to different communities throughout the southwest to help people understand that there are
arms seller. we're taking the leading edge on the drone technology. we're regularly killing people in countries we're not even at war with. so i guess in this opaque system you talk about the legalities of it. it's about making laws so they can do what they want to do which they were doing any way. that i guess--i don't think that if you can rationalize killing anyone--unarmed kids because they happen to be near people you think are bad guys then i think you can rationalize basic basically killing anybody. >> you mentioned the numbers and we have the numbers for the audience right now. they're very telling. let's look at the first ten days of 2014. this is pakistan alone there were seven deadly strikes. at least 40 people killed. 11 of them may have been civilians. that's just an example of the precise operations happening abroad. >> and we're told that al-qaeda has been destroyed yet there has been 132 they had to kill in 2013. sorry. >> just to give you more numbers. between 2004 and 2013 total u.s. strikes were 362. total reported killed, 2629 to 3461. civilians killed, 475 to 8
of this technology to kill americans even if those americans are deplorable. what is the difference between doing that and letting the c.i.a. do open hits with guns and rifles in the u.s.? >> jennifer: and i think these are really important points that you have to have protocols you got to have structures and you got to protect the rights of american citizens, but to say that you couldn't be using drone shouldn't be using drones at all because of collateral damage. >> you get around the need of the long time it takes to get a war in. there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to set up something like that to have a check and balance here. >> jennifer: stephanie let me flip you back on the republican side. there are republicans like senator richard burr but really the fact that there is this fight on the left to get back to that question, don't you think that it assures that brennan is more likely to get confirmed by picking a lot of republican votes? >> i agree, and i also think that just jumping back to the gun argument it also helps news terms of the people who think they need guns to protect
. the problem i believe is we've got this technology. we are using it. we are using it more than anybody has ever used it before. i mean i forget how many -- you know, this story broke. i have to go back and look at the research i've done. i've written about this. how many hundreds of people have been killed in pakistan, afghanistan, in somalia with drones. we've got this technology. we're using it. we are killing not just suspected terrorists but civilians. we're not making any effort to round them up to put them on trial. we're just targeting them with drone strikes. we're killing them. and again, there is a lot of collateral damage, some -- at least evidence of 45 civilians including children who have been killed by drones in the last year. reports the new york review of books. we're using this technology but congress has not decided. the white house has not released what are the guidelines. who decides when to use it. what rules do we follow if any? and is this really legal under international law to do it? the justice department now says it is. but the idea that somebody -- and you know
doing as a government as a country, when this technology eventually gets into their hands and they stop dropping them on us. because that is probably going to happen. >> stephanie: who is they? >> caller: whoever we are dropping them on. the terrorists. >> stephanie: uh-huh. >> caller: i would believe that eventually that is going to happen here, just like the planes flying -- >> another country getting drones and flying them here? >> caller: yeah, in other words what are we doing -- look this -- this technology i'm sure we already have people been contacted about selling it to them -- >> stephanie: but i don't understand your point so we should not use technology -- >> they still show up on radar. >> stephanie: yeah. somebody made that point yesterday. they were like what if mexico decides to do it -- >> there is a thing called identify friend of foe where you can identify whether it is us or somebody else's. >> stephanie: i'm kind of guessing that mexico wouldn't decide to spend drones into the u.s. >> i have faith in the air force to find enemy drones and shoot
other countries have drones? you know it seems -- >> yeah. >> technology technology is always going down. this is something that is sort of justified like the caller suggested, but it's not going to be -- you know we have seen stories about people having personal drones. there was a story a couple of months ago about, you know, a millionaire in california who bought his personal drone to follow his kid walking to school so he could see him, you know, between his house and school. so it's not from that points, it's not all that much longer before, you know, the bad guys out there have access toss that kind of technology and then the shoe is on the other foot so to speak and you would suspect folks wouldn't be so thrilled about the idea that it's you can do this without having people involved. >> good points to which i would add, when we send boots on the ground, right, the american people know where they are going, why they are going, and when they are coming home. at least that's what we demand. right? these drones are sent out by the c.i.a. or the defen
-paying jobs? we need to do further investment in our job training so we get stem, science, technology and engineering and we restore manufacturing jobs boost up apresent ships programs -- apprenticeship programs. i was glad the president talked about that in his inaugural address to the nation. >> one issue that is job-related -- again your comments and calls, questions about the job numbers. welcome here to secretary hilda solis. 866-55-press. immigration is a top priority. the president made that clear, giving a big speech on it. you were there for the president's speech. >> that's job related? >> it is. it's revenue related. it's also security related. the president talked about continuing to secure the border which we have seen enforcement go into prevent the high tide of people who were coming in. a lot of it has to do with the economy? >> it's for the happening any more. what we need to do is look at those 11 million that are here, create a legalized earned pathway. earned is really the underscored word here get in the back of the line, learn en
's new here -- or i think is two things. one is that we have the technology now to target people with a minimal cost to the united states whether through drones or through other means. >> stephanie: american soldiers. >> right. right. relatively little cost to the forces. and then the other thing that's new is that in this case, it involved a u.s. citizen. and so the question becomes how do we make sure that if someone is a legitimate threat to the united states as bin laden was as yamamoto was, we can still take appropriate action while at the same time making sure that there's some checks. >> stephanie: legally ian again, because i'm trying to understand it legally at what point -- do you -- is there a point legally where you cease being an american citizen and become an enemy combatant if you're actively aiding terrorists? >> i think that the u.s. citizen point here matters less than the need for oversight generally. >> stephanie: right. >> if someone is actively engaged in war against the united states, i think if they were born in louisiana that shouldn't save them. there we
researchers a national medal of science today and 11 will receive the national medal of technology and innovation. these are the highest honor for the government for scientists engineers and inventors. al first stop on a 5 day trip to germany, frannies and united kingdom to talk about range of global issues. meeting with angela merkel and on saturday, biden will join other senior officials from russia and the united nations to meet with the syrian opposition to discuss that country. earlier today, first day out of office for secretary of state hillary clinton. she has extraordinary approval ratings according to the washington post-abc news poll, american people approve but congress has a 19% approval rating. she has visited 112 countries, spent 401 days on the road and met with 1700 world leaders. if that weren't enough she's already got a word in for 2016. no word on whether she will actually run. more bill press up next. stay with us. converstion started weekdays at 9am eastern. >> i'm a slutty bob hope. >> you are. >> the troops love me. (vo) tv a
proposed. but the thing was when they were first for instant background checks the technology wasn't here yet. and so it was easy to say oh, yeah, we're for instant background checks when we get there in five to ten years and but yeah, they're just -- there is a certain -- i mean if somebody was that obsessive about any other thing, if you were obsessive about drugs about anything, that was actually causing harm to the community, to society at large you clung to that and said no matter what, we need to keep doing what we're doing, you would call that person crazy. i mean, diagnosebly crazy. >> stephanie: obviously much has been written and said about gayle trotter as you say embodying the gun nut -- a senior fellow at who the [ bleep ] cares. [ laughter ] ironically, she has been against the violence against women act and here she is testifying about how she needs an uzi. i mean, yeah. right. you were saying she talked about quote-unquote the peace of mind a woman has as she's facing three, four, five violent attacker ins her home with her children screaming in the background. the peace o
and technologies, and they are not having any problems. >> stephanie: you and i talked about the fare mongering, like for instance they have said insurance companies are raising their rates. and you said -- blame the culprit, the insurance companies. >> i don't understand why people are so hesitant to blame the people who are actually doing the bad act. if your employer is cutting back your hours because they don't want to give you access to affordable health care blame the employer. >> exactly. it's like papa john's pizza is going to be $0.14 more i have to fire people because of obamacare. blame the companies, because you are a douche. >> yeah the top five health insurance companies made more money they did the year before and the year before that. why are we feeling sorry for the wealthiest? and the people who are making record profits and paying incredible salaries d health insurance companies don't provide any actual health care. and as far as doctors are concerned, i don't know a lot of people who are deciding not to go to medical school because they don't think it
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11